Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 attch 9- 10RESOLUTION NO. 14 -28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPT CEQA MITIGATION FINDINGS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT PLPA 2013 -00002 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Bates Stringer Ventures, proposes to demolish an existing 110,000 square foot office complex and develop 54 small lot single - family homes and a two - story 14,000 square foot office building on approximately 6.6 acres in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan ") area. The project proposes a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations on a 5.85 acre portion of the site from Retail /Office (RO) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), and proposes a PD- Planned Development rezoning with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement for the entire 6.6 acre site. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located at 11875 Dublin Boulevard, west of San Ramon Road; south of Dublin Boulevard; east of Donlon Way; and north of Interstate 580; and WHEREAS, the City prepared Draft and Final EIRs (together "EIR ") for the Project, as further described in attached Exhibit A. The Planning Commission considered the EIR and other documents and testimony in connection with a public hearing on the Project on June 10, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the Planning division of the Community Development Department at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, during normal business hours, file PLPA 2013 - 00002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Dublin Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report and hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference certifying the Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines, and adopting all required mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O'Keefe NOES: Kohli, Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2272214.1 2 Planning Commission Chair RESOLUTION NO. 14 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT PLPA- 2013 -00002 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Bates Stringer Ventures, proposes to demolish an existing 110,000 square foot office complex and develop 54 small -lot single - family homes and a two - story 14,000 square foot office building on approximately 6.6 acres in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan ") area. The project proposes a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations on a 5.85 acre portion of the site from Retail /Office (RO) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), and proposes a PD- Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement for the entire 6.6 acre site. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located at 11875 Dublin Boulevard, west of San Ramon Road; south of Dublin Boulevard; east of Donlon Way; and north of Interstate 580; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, on June 10, 2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 10, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all reports, recommendations and testimony prior to making its recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Specific Plan amendments for the Heritage Park project, which resolution is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O'Keefe NOES: Kohli, Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2276790.1 2 RESOLUTION NO. 14 -30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT SITE TO PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013 -00002 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Bates Stringer Ventures, proposes to demolish an existing 110,000 square foot office complex and develop 54 small lot single - family homes and a two - story 14,000 square foot office building on approximately 6.6 acres in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan ") area. The project proposes a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations on a 5.85 acre portion of the site from Retail /Office (RO) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), and proposes a PD- Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement for the entire 6.6 acre site. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located at 11875 Dublin Boulevard, west of San Ramon Road; south of Dublin Boulevard; east of Donlon Way; and north of Interstate 580; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed PD rezoning, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 10, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the PD rezoning, for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -XX recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all reports, recommendations and testimony prior to making its recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which ordinance rezones the Heritage Park site to Planned Development and approves a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached Draft Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O'Keefe NOES: Kohli, Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2276820.1 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT, PARCEL MAP AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8160 FOR THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT (PLPA- 2013- 00002) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Bates Stringer Ventures, proposes to demolish an existing 110,000 square foot office complex and develop 54 small lot single - family homes and a two - story 14,000 square foot office building on approximately 6.6 acres in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan ") area. The project proposes a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations on a 5.85 acre portion of the site from Retail /Office (RO) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), and proposes a PD- Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement for the entire 6.6 acre site. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at 11887 Dublin Boulevard - North of Interstate Highway 580, south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Donlon Way, and west of San Ramon Road (APN 941 - 1550 - 005 -03); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90 -day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the Site Development Review request, Parcel Map and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8160; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on June 10,2014-and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; ITTI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, based on the findings in the attached Resolution, DOES NOT recommend that the City Council adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves the Site Development Review Permit, Parcel Map and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8160. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Do, O'Keefe NOES: Bhuthimethee, Kohli, Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPk20131PLPA- 2013 -00002 Heritage Park Office GPAIPC Mtg 6.10.141PC Reso Recommending SDR VTmap Heritage.docx RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND BATES STRINGER VENTURES FOR THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT PLPA 2013 -00002 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Bates Stringer Ventures, proposes to demolish an existing 110,000 square foot office complex and develop 54 small lot single - family homes and a two - story 14,000 square foot office building on approximately 6.6 acres in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan ") area. The project proposes a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations on a 5.85 acre portion of the site from Retail /Office (RO) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), and proposes a PD- Planned Development rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement for the entire 6.6 acre site. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; related approvals of the applications are collectively known as the "Project Approvals "; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located at 11875 Dublin Boulevard, west of San Ramon Road; south of Dublin Boulevard; east of Donlon Way; and north of Interstate 580; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -XX recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, Resolution 14 -XX recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, Resolution 14- XX recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Planned Development rezoning, and Resolution 14 -XX recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map, which Resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Draft Ordinance approving the proposed Development Agreement is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, with the Development Agreement as Exhibit B, which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Development Agreement- 1 . The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, and in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan in that: (a) the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations (as amended), policies, programs and objectives are incorporated into the Development Agreement and not altered by the Development Agreement; and (b) the Project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the Developer's proposed Project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the General Plan, Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, and Project Approvals. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the Project will be consistent with the General Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, and Project Approvals. 6. The Development Agreement complies with the requirements of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.56 and specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The Development Agreement contains an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, approving the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Bates Stringer Ventures related to the Heritage Park Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June 2014. AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O'Keefe NOES: Kohli, Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2277053.1 Page 2 of 2 DRAFT DRAFT 4ggj l�r,'q Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 10, 2014 CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 10, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:04:15 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the May 27, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA 2014 -00013 — Nielsen Residential Project - Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for minor amendments to Planned Development Zoning District PA 07 -057. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Goel asked if the number of units is the same as the original proposal. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the original vesting tentative map had 34 lots, with 2 lots being duet units, but there was still 36 units proposed for the site. Cm. Goel asked if the square footage and lot size for the current proposal are also similar to the original proposal. Ms. Bascom answered that the lot size is similar but overall slightly smaller. She stated that there were larger lots in the previous proposal, although the standard remains the same. She stated that, because this is the first time reviewing the floor plans, architecture, square footage and size of the homes, there is no comparison. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel was concerned that the original layout showed a turnaround on Street A, but in the current proposal it is more of a 3 -point turn and asked why that change was made. Ms. Bascom deferred the question to the Applicant. She stated that the tentative map was approved in 2010, and fire access requirements have changed since that time. Also, there was an EVA access road in the open space area along Tassajara Road which is no longer required and was removed and that allowed the area to be used for landscaping. She stated that the Fire Department reviewed the turn around, and found that it meets the access requirements. Cm. Goel asked why the EVA access road was changed. Ms. Bascom answered that the Fire Department required the EVA in 2010, but some requirements changed so it is no longer needed. She stated that the refined layout provides more room for landscaping, etc. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Scott Roylance, William Lyons Homes, Applicant, spoke regarding the project. He stated that the primary reason for the change to the end of Street A was that the fire code changed which allowed the elimination of the EVA and made Tassajara Road frontage look better. He felt that the hammer head was the best possible solution but it meant that it would have to be maintained by the HOA. He thanked Staff and accepted the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Do asked why the decision was made not to add another access point to the development. She felt that some of the residents would prefer direct access off of Tassajara Road. Mr. Roylance responded that it was because of grading and, when the project was originally approved, the primary point of entrance was on Silvera Ranch Drive. He stated that the road that curved down to Tassajara Road was an EVA. He stated that topography was also a factor. Cm. Goel was concerned about the turn - around on Street A and asked if the Applicant had evaluated what would be necessary to retain the original configuration. He felt that an HOA maintained street has the potential to not be as well maintained as City maintained streets. He felt that the proposed configuration would also raise the HOA dues and benefit one set of homeowners over the others. He stated that a 7 foot high retaining wall is not too high and would be only 1 foot taller than the regular fence height. Jim Templeton, McKay and Somps, responded that the original proposal had a bulb out at the end of Street A and, with the EVA, there would need to be 3 tiered retaining walls. He stated that the Applicant wanted to eliminate a lot of the retaining walls which was one of the main goals in the redesign of the project. He added that, with the new design and a bigger bulb out, the same problem would exist, but there would have been more than 7 foot high retaining walls. Cm. Goel asked what the elevation difference is between the finished grade of the center line of the roadway and the center line of the bulb out on Street A. Mr. Templeton answered that it is 40 feet from Tassajara Road to Street A and another 40 feet to the top. He added that the bulb out at the top of Street A was on the tentative map, in terms of the elevation. He stated that, in the original approval, they had to adhere to a range that was required by the City. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kgjukaw `JOAleeliwaif (11 as g e 19 :4 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel asked if the Applicant is modifying the slope to build the street and the slope ratio. Mr. Templeton responded that the slope ratio is 2:1, but varies in different areas up to 4:1. There was a discussion regarding how to calculate the size and ratio of retaining walls and the turn around. Cm. Goel was concerned with the bulb out and with parking on only one side of the street. He stated that he is not asking for a redesign of the project but asked if this is the best solution. Mr. Templeton responded that Street A is the same width as was originally approved with the tentative map for this project in 2010. He stated that the street width is not changing; the street became a private street because they eliminated the turn - around. He stated that Staff asked for it to be a private street and it was a requirement of the Fire Department. He stated that the street is built to City standards. Cm. Goel asked if there are sidewalks on both sides of the streets. Mr. Templeton answered that there are sidewalks on the house side only. He stated that they designed it that way so that people would only park on one side of the street. Cm. Goel asked if they looked at a different alignment for Street A, aside from the existing tentative map. Mr. Templeton answered yes, to some extent, but with the topography there were not a lot of options. Cm. Goel referred to the topographic lines on the survey map; he felt that there is mostly flat terrain near the bulb out at the end of Street A and the steepest segment is only along 4 -5 houses. Mr. Templeton answered that, in order to widen Tassajara Road to build out conditions, the Applicant will be cutting into the hill an additional 5 -6 feet, pushing into the hill approximately 25 feet. He stated that the cut starts at the bottom and catches up. Cm. Goel asked if the contours on the survey map are the finished contours. Mr. Templeton answered no; those are existing contours. Mr. Roylance referred to Cm. Goel's question regarding public vs. private street maintenance. He stated that the project will be a high end community, and the CC &R's will ensure that the private streets are maintained in the same fashion as the City streets. Cm. Goel asked if they considered creating a gated community. Mr. Roylance answered yes; but they felt that a gate would not provide any added benefit. Kane Wong, Silvera Ranch Drive resident, spoke regarding the project. He asked where the public street is located and where the private street will begin. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 akgpdaaw.`JOAleelaaaif 41 as g e 1 9,E DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom pointed out on the slide the public streets and the private street. She stated that everything coming off Silvera Ranch Drive all the way through the cul -de -sac is a public street. Mr. Wong asked if the landscaping on the public street will be maintained by the HOA. Chair Bhuthimethee answered yes, and asked Ms. Bascom to further address the question. Ms. Bascom answered that the only area that the City maintains is the street pavement from Silvera Ranch Drive through the cul -de -sac and everything else is maintained by the HOA. She stated that the landscaping throughout the project is maintained by the HOA. Chair Bhuthimethee asked how the private street was determined. Ms. Bascom responded that the street is built to City standards, and the only reason the street is private is because the hammerhead turnaround at the end of Street A is not built to City standards for a public street. Mr. Wong asked if the landscaping that faces the public street is maintained by the HOA. Chair Bhuthimethee responded that all the landscaping on the plan is maintained by the HOA. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that the plans indicate that "drought tolerant plants should be used wherever possible ", and asked if the Planning Commission can change that to indicate that "drought tolerant plans should be used at this time of drought in California." She felt that, even though this Applicant chooses a drought tolerant plant pallet, in the future, the Planning Commission should require that during times of drought Applicants should use drought tolerant plants first. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that currently DSRSD has restrictions on watering landscaping and asked if the City has any policy that addresses the water shortage as well as using drought tolerant plants. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded that water for the City is supplied by Zone 7 (wholesaler) and DSRSD (retailer) controls the water policy, but the City Council has adopted an emergency drought ordinance. He stated that policies related to water use are driven by DSRSD and their board who have imposed significant restrictions on the use of water during the drought period. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the City has any policies in place that require a certain percentage of plants to be drought tolerant versus medium or high water use plants. Mr. Baker responded that the City has the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) that addresses those issues regarding water resources which is driven by state requirements. He stated that the City can encourage Applicants to go above and beyond that ordinance, but would be hesitant to include overly restrictive requirements in order to ensure flexibility to provide appropriate landscaping. He felt that the City could encourage a developer to maximize the use of drought tolerant plants as best as they can. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom mentioned that Condition of Approval #40 states "Sustainable Landscape Practices. The landscape design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in the Bay- Friendly Landscape Guidelines..." She stated that DSRSD receives a copy of the final landscaping plans and provides comments as far as plant selection and water usage. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that Bay - Friendly Landscape Guidelines require a certain percentage of plants to be drought tolerant. Cm. Do was concerned that the landscaping may die due to lack of water. She stated that she is in support of the project and she can make the findings. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is in support of the project and felt that the project brings cohesion to Tassajara Road between Quarry Lane School and the Silvera Ranch development. He mentioned the importance of the enhancements on the homes that face Tassajara Road and felt those enhancements are very important to the community. He stated that he can make the findings. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project. He felt that it is a well- designed project and is looking forward to it being a part of the community. He agreed with Cm. Do regarding drought tolerant plants and felt it is a topic that they should always be thinking of and where there is an opportunity they should consider drought issues. He felt that Staff and DSRSD have a good process in place and stated that he is comfortable with that. Chair Bhuthimethee mentioned that the plant pallet is very drought resistant. Cm. Do stated that her comments were meant to be in general and not specific to this project. She felt that, when new developments come to the City, the Planning Commission should keep that in mind. Cm. Kohli stated that he can make the findings. Cm Goel was concerned with the grading plan and that the neighborhood will be stuck with a partial private street. He felt that maintaining the private street will be a challenge for the HOA. He was also concerned that there are sidewalks on only one side of the street. He felt that sometimes it seems that the developers are trying to cram in the houses and not thinking about the overall look of the development. He stated that he has seen the other developments produced by the Applicant and felt that they were all well - built. He felt that the original project had a lot of nice elements to it and the proposed project could have been done better. Cm. Goel asked Staff if the existing heritage oak is at the center of the property. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the one at the top by the existing home. Cm. Goel asked Ms. Bascom to point out the home on the map. Ms. Bascom referred the Planning Commission to Sheet C -7 which shows the existing conditions. Cm. Goel asked the age of the tree. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom responded that the tree is considered a heritage tree due to its size; there was no arborists report done to determine the age. She stated that Sheet SR2 shows the existing condition and stated that the tree is located immediately adjacent to the residence. She pointed out on the slide where the tree is located and stated that the removal of the tree was approved with the original tentative map. The EIR that was certified in 2010 included mitigation for the removal of the tree to replace it with three (3) 36" box oak trees. Cm. Goel felt that the proposed subdivision layout is taking away some good elements that were in the original proposal. He felt that the private street will create a problem for 7 of 36 property owners. He stated that he is opposed to the project and asked the other Commissioners for their thoughts. He felt that the overall project looks good but was concerned about the private street being the responsibility of the HOA. Cm. O'Keefe responded that he also felt the project is good overall. He felt that the Applicant will disclose to potential homeowners the benefits and costs associated with the HOA and that the benefits outweigh the cost in this situation. Cm. Kohli agreed with Cm. O'Keefe that the overall project is good. He stated that he understands Cm. Goel's concern but did not feel that concern is enough to deny the project. He felt that the Applicant has created an attractive community and the developer put themselves at risk to sell homes within this type of community. He stated that he understands Cm. Goel's concern but still supports the project. Cm Do felt that having a private street is a benefit and, if she were going to buy a house in the neighborhood, she would pick the house at the end of Street A because it has the bulb out. She felt that cars would not drive all the way to the end if they did not have a reason to be there and the area would be conducive for children at play. She felt that the project provided more open space and the homes do not look crowded and are more visually pleasing. Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Do and felt that there are lots of private streets in other subdivisions and did not feel it was a concern. She was glad that the EVA is gone and felt that the absence of the EVA enhances Tassajara Road. She also felt that Cm. Goel's concern only impacts a few homeowners and that overall the City benefits by the view from Tassajara Road being enhanced. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the Applicant has done a fantastic job with the architecture and liked the elevations. She stated that a concern for the Planning Commission is the view of the elevations from the public street and they always ask for those elevations to be enhanced. She felt that the Applicant has enhanced the fronts of the homes and was pleased with those. She mentioned the Silvera Ranch homes that back up to streets that are very nice and have a lot of relief and detailing. She asked if the Applicant would agree to further enhance the elevations along Tassajara Road to mirror Silvera Ranch. Chair Bhuthimethee reopened the public hearing Mr. Roylance asked if there were any specific details that Chair Bhuthimethee had in mind so that he could work with Staff on those enhancements. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif W as g e 1 9" DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee mentioned all the homes that can be seen from Tassajara Road and the side of one home that can also be seen. She felt that some of the items that would be effective would be window ledges and shutters and other enhancements. Mr. Roylance asked if Chair Bhuthimethee would like to see shutters, and planter details under the windows, etc. Chair Bhuthimethee agreed and asked the Applicant to work with Staff to further enhance the elevations on those homes. Mr. Roylance agreed to work with Staff to further enhance the homes on those lots. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the transformer box on the project is an existing box. Mr. Roylance answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the backyard walls with the fences are stucco that will match the architecture. Mr. Roylance answered yes; there will be a continued stucco theme throughout the project that will match the overall colors and elevations of the rest of the project. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there would be some plants at the bottom of the walls to help soften the walls. Mr. Roylance answered yes; he referred to the discussion regarding the replacement of the heritage tree with 3 36" box trees and stated that there will be more than 3 36" box coastal and cork oak trees and several of those will be planted along the open space so that there will be the retaining Chemed wall and a very nice plant pallet to help soften the look. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant would agree to plant shrubs at the bottom of the wall to help hide the wall. Mr. Roylance agreed. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant would agree to eliminate the liquid amber trees from the street tree list because of the spikey balled fruit that causes problems. Mr. Roylance answered that the tree has already been eliminated from the list. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 4 -1, with Cm. Goel voting no because of his concern regarding the private Street A, and with a condition added to further enhance the rear elevation of lots 1 -9 and the side elevation of lot 10, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 -26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 DRAFT DRAFT OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EXHIBITS, LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE GUIDELINES, AND ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA FOR THE NIELSEN PROJECT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (PA 07 -057) RESOLUTION NO. 14 -27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A NEW 36 -UNIT SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON A 10.9 ACRE SITE AT 6407 TASSAJARA ROAD 8.2 PLPA 2013 - 00002— Heritage Park - General Plan /Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Parcel Map 10259, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map -Tract 8160, Environmental Impact Report, and Development Agreement for a 6.6 -acre site. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli asked which of the 5 recommendations is regarding the re- designation from Retail /Office to Residential. Mr. Porto answered that recommendation #2 would change the project from Retail /Office to Medium Density Residential. Cm. O'Keefe asked what the range per unit is for the last 5 -10 projects that included a community benefit payment and if there is a standardized amount per unit. Mr. Baker answered that there is no per /unit figure. He stated that Community Benefit Payments, when appropriate, are negotiated by the City Council through the City Manager's office. The negotiation is based on direction from the City Council and is negotiated based on a specific project, but there is no standard per /unit figure. Cm. O'Keefe asked if a portion of any of the Community Benefit Payments have ever been directed to the school district. Mr. Baker answered that he is not aware of any Community Benefit Payment that has gone directly to the School District, although there are projects that the City and the school district partner on and share resources. Cm. Goel asked about the proposed timeline for the start of construction. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Porto deferred to the developer, but stated that he is aware that the developer is working on the construction documents for the office building and would like to submit them along with the grading plan for that area as soon as all approvals are received. He stated that the developer must build the office building and move Challenge Dairy before starting the rest of the project. He felt that the developer would like to start as soon as possible. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Scott Stringer, Bates Stringer Ventures, Applicant, spoke in favor the project. He stated that he would speak to their visioning for the project and the public outreach that has been done to obtain support from the neighbors. He stated that they started their visioning with Staff and thanked them for their help. He stated that they began with the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Design Guidelines for both commercial and residential. He stated that the guidelines provided guidance and inspiration for how to design the project. He referred to the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Section 7.2 Commercial Design Guidelines and Section 7.3 Residential Design Guidelines. He stated that they wanted to design the project to meet these guidelines in order to ensure that the Heritage Park project complied with the specific plan for the area. He mentioned the design guidelines and how their project design was based on these guidelines. Building forms and Elements • Open faced from porches — all homes have usable front porches • Verandas and balconies are strongly encouraged • Building height — two -story homes are encouraged to keep massing down. • Building materials — horizontal wood siding, shingle siding, rock, stone or brick or composition shingles for roofs. Window and door shutters, panelized wood, etc. • Homes designed with front porches to encourage interaction along the public street • Traditional neighborhood design principles that encourage walking and pedestrian activity • Relatively narrow street widths — streets are all designed with parking one side. • Variety of lot widths — they have provided 3 lot widths. • Building placement — homes should be sited at variable front yard setbacks with close proximity to the sidewalk — they have done that. They have pushed the homes forward towards the sidewalk to comply with the guidelines. Garages are pushed back, trellises placed on the walkway and the scoring of the driveways are all done to comply with the guidelines. • Landscaping — paid special attention to ensure landscaping met the guidelines. • Front yard fences — trellis and front yard fences Community Outreach • Corporate citizenship- it is important to establish good relationships with surrounding property owners and tenants. • Referred to the church and restaurant - discovered that, when the parcel was mapped, there were 3 parcels, • Shared parking between the 3 parcels. • Worked with the restaurant and church owners to reconstruct a new parking lot that will serve the church, restaurant and office only. • Created a small owners association for the 3 entities to enhance and redevelop the corner. • Painting the restaurant. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e I /00 DRAFT DRAFT o Enhance and develop the corner to make it look fresh and new but continue the heritage look. Mr. Stringer stated that the church and the restaurant have submitted letters of support. Mr. Stringer stated that they met with the executive committee of Challenge Dairy and found that they have been in the building for 30 years. He stated that they renewed their lease but then worked with Mr. Stringer to build a new office building for them where they will remain. Mr. Stringer stated that they are also helping to upgrade the home of the owner of the Dublin Kennels, located at the end of Donlon Way in front of the kennel. They will be replacing some fencing and hedging and enhancing the house which is one of the oldest homes in the area. He stated that they tried to contact all the property owners surrounding the project area that would be affected by the project, including the Heritage Park and Museums across the street from the project. They requested that the Community Benefit Payment be used for the Heritage Park and Museums. Mr. Stringer mentioned the black walnut trees that will be removed; they are not heritage trees and are not in good health and not worth saving. He stated that they created pop -outs on Donlon Way where the replacement trees will be planted that will create a street canopy. He stated that the value of the trees is approximately $19,000 and that amount will, in addition to the Community Benefit Payment, be used toward the orchard at the Heritage Park. He felt that they have tried to upgrade the area by enhancing the homes in front of the kennel, the park, the church and the restaurant. Mr. Stringer thanked the Planning Commission and stated that they would appreciate their support. Cm. Kohli asked if they considered an area already designated for residential for this project. Mr. Stringer responded that they are always looking for sites to develop so they are not just focused at the Heritage Park area. He felt that this is a very competitive market place and this project fit their needs. Cm. Goel asked about the timeline for construction. Mr. Stringer answered they would like to start immediately, but the Challenge Dairy must be moved before they can tear down the building. He stated that they have completed the construction drawings for the office building and are ready for submittal. He stated that the office building should take approximately 7 months to complete and they are anxious to begin construction. Chair Bhuthimethee thanked the Applicant for the outreach to the community. She stated that the area is very valuable because of the proximity to downtown. She mentioned that, during discussions regarding the Economic Development Element to the General Plan, the City would offer some Class A office space near the downtown. She felt that the surrounding area is commercial and asked if the Applicant has gone through other iterations of the land use and asked him to share those with the Planning Commission. Mr. Stringer asked if she meant other residential opportunities or commercial. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee responded she wanted to know if they had considered retail, or office space, and then a variety of housing types. She stated that there is a lot of high density near the BART station and the downtown which makes sense, but single - family residential may not. Mr. Stringer responded that the area is not appropriate for retail because it is hidden behind a church and a restaurant. He stated that the downtown is located to the east and the project is located to the west which is predominately a residential neighborhood. He felt that retail would not survive in that location. He stated that they looked at doing an office building complex but felt it was not a solid investment due to the amount of vacancies in the Tri- Valley. He stated that they took the design guidelines for the area very seriously and designed the project to comply with the guidelines. He felt that this project was the least impacting type of project for the area. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the walnut trees are not heritage trees but there are other heritage trees on -site that are part of the heritage of the area and tie into the park. She felt that those trees are also valuable to the City. Mr. Stringer agreed and stated that they completed an arborist report which recommended that all the perimeter trees, located around the church and the restaurant, will remain. He stated there are some oaks that will remain as well as pines along San Ramon Road. He stated that the main onsite heritage trees are redwood and are planted in the middle of the office buildings that will be torn down which will make it impossible to save them. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if all the mitigation for the existing trees is included in the $19,000. She asked if they will mitigate the trees onsite. Mr. Stringer answered yes; he stated that they can put larger trees in the project and there are 7 trees on Donlon Way which will be boxed trees. He stated that they would have no problem planting 16 or more boxed trees and actually preferred the instant impact with larger sized trees. He stated that he has no problem with a Condition of Approval to replace the trees with boxed trees. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the Applicant did a nice job with the Challenge Dairy building and liked how it ties in with the historic park and the church. She felt that the homes across the street from St. Raymond's Church and the historic park, seem too large and are out of context. She felt that those houses are larger than the Kolb house and it doesn't feel right. She felt that with the more historic homes have a lot of land in front of them and asked if that could be incorporated into the project. She asked why all the largest homes are on Donlon Way. She felt that historic homes are generally on large lots with a lot of space between the house and the street. Mr. Stringer responded that the project cannot be built as a large lot project. He stated that the design guidelines, which they followed when designing the project, stated specifically that the houses should be pushed forward. He stated that the yards were not meant to be grand front yards but the landscaping enhancements and the architectural detailing will bring out the historic element of the site. He stated that their original proposal was for 11 smaller houses and, through discussions with Staff, it was felt that 7 larger houses would be better with less garage and more house and push the garages back to comply with the guidelines of a historic home. He felt that the rendering only shows the front portion of the house with the garage but the 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e 1 102 DRAFT DRAFT houses will not look so large and intimidating. He stated that those houses were designed specifically for that street. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the size of the Kolb House. Mr. Stringer was unsure the size of the Kolb house. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the homes on Donlon Way are 3,500 square foot homes. Mr. Stringer answered that the homes on Donlon Way are 3,100+ square feet and did not feel they were too large compared to some other projects. He stated that these homes were specifically made grander to create the architectural element on the street, which is the vision for the project. Steven Lockhart, Dublin Historical Preservation Association, spoke regarding the project. He is concerned with keeping the heritage, history and the buildings alive. He stated he worked with Staff on the Heritage Center and was concerned with how little parking there was for the center. He was told at that time that they will use the parking lot across the street at the office building which is empty at night and on the weekends. He was concerned that there will be less parking for the Heritage Center. He was also concerned with the traffic impacts and felt that there will be more trips than are mentioned in the traffic analysis. He felt that a traffic signal will be needed at the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Donlon Way. Steve Minniear, resident, spoke regarding the project. He stated that he is also a member of the Dublin Historical Preservation Association. He commended the developer for considering the heritage of Dublin in their project. He stated that the developer was required to do that because of the plan for the historic center. He was concerned with the massing and style of the homes and felt that a lower density in the historic area was what was required by the specific plan. He felt that the traffic study mentioned in the EIR is incorrect. He was concerned with too much traffic and felt that there should be a traffic signal at the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Donlon Way. He was concerned that the geological study did not mention the effect on the area of an earthquake during 1860's. Richard Guarienti, resident, spoke regarding the project. He thanked the Planning Commission for their work and dedication. He mentioned his letter of response to the EIR that concerned parking, the removal of the walnut trees, the perimeter trees, the historical marker that will be moved, and the fault line. He felt that there was inaccuracies in the draft EIR regarding water, and student ratios. He felt that many of his concerns could be resolved with less density and more onsite parking, setback the houses from Donlon Way, remove less trees, no homes close to fault line, and an onsite tot lot should be provided. He asked if the Planning Commission has been to the site and suggested that they do so before making a decision regarding the project. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing then reopened it. Mr. Stringer asked to respond regarding the speakers' comments. He stated that the traffic analysis found that there would be less traffic from 54 houses than the 110,000 square foot office building. He deferred more questions to the EIR consultant. He stated that, regarding the fault setback issue, the Applicant spent a lot of time and cost to hire 3 geologists who trenched the site, found the fault and surveyed it. He stated that the City has peer reviewed the analysis by its own engineer and found it acceptable. He also deferred to Jayson Imai, Senior Civil 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kgjukaw .`J leelaaaif W as g e I /03 DRAFT DRAFT Engineer, to expand on that issue. He stated that, while he appreciates the park has a short fall of parking, it has nothing to do with the Heritage Park project. He felt that, if the plan was to park on private property for City events, it was gracious of the previous owner, but that would not continue. He stated that he sympathizes with the parking problem and felt that some of the Community Benefit Payment could go towards more parking, but it is a Heritage Park and Museums' parking shortage - not their development shortage. He stated he would also defer to the EIR consultant regarding traffic signals. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Chair Bhuthimethee requested the recommendation slide and asked the Planning Commissioners how they would like to discuss them. Cm. Kohli suggested voting on the General Plan /DVHASP Amendment first because it refers to the re- designation of the site. He felt that, if there was no support for the re- designation, he was unsure how to proceed with the other recommendations. Cm. Goel disagreed with Cm. Kohli because he felt that they must vote on the EIR first but he had some questions regarding the EIR and the comments from the public that could help him make a decision. Chair Bhuthimethee suggested that they have a discussion regarding their general thoughts regarding the project and then move forward with the recommendations. Cm. Goel asked Staff to address the traffic study and the fault line report. Mr. Porto answered that the City's Environmental consultant, Bill Wiseman from Kimley -Horn, is here to answer questions regarding the traffic study and Jason Imai, Senior Civil Engineer, can answer questions regarding the fault line report. Cm. Goel stated that he could not locate the documents regarding the calculations for the traffic study that the speakers referred to. He hoped that the consultant could point out the calculations and address some of the speakers' concerns regarding the perceived inaccuracies. He wanted to ensure that the public hears the responses and that the issues are identified. Bill Wiseman, Kimley -Horn, EIR Consultant, stated that this is an unusual circumstance in that a traffic study was not included in the EIR. He stated that, when Kimley -Horn scoped the project, they did a trip generation analysis because they wanted to ensure that they scoped the project appropriately to comply with CEQA requirements. He stated that they did a Trip Generation Rate using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) standards, which is used for all traffic studies, and looked at the trip generation rate for the existing project and what is proposed. He stated that the project would receive a trip credit as it applies to the existing use. That analysis was documented and included in the Notice of Preparation that was out for public review prior to the preparation of the EIR. They received no comments on the traffic conclusions that were made. He stated that in Chapter 4 of the EIR there is a description of what is titled under CEQA "effects not to be found significant." Page 4.6 shows the trip generation analysis as compared to existing conditions. He stated that the calculations results in a reduction of 600 daily trips. He stated that, because it was determined that there were less trips overall, there was no need for an entire traffic analysis which is a standard approach to justify the need. It was reviewed with the City Staff and is a consistent approach to doing traffic analysis. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e 1 104 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel asked if the ITE codes use square footage to base the analysis on and asked Mr. Wiseman to explain this approach compared to completing a formal traffic study. Mr. Wiseman answered that the analysis has nothing to do with the size of the project. He stated that, when traffic is analyzed under the "level of significance" criteria, it has to do with what is the affect on the transportation network, the roadway segments and intersections. He stated that if there was to be an analysis — the existing conditions of the office building would generate 1,400 trips (estimated by ITE) on the transportation network, but the proposed project will only generate 811. He stated that the project can be analyzed but it would already be known that the proposed project will generate less trips so there would be no need to do a formal analysis. Cm. Goel asked about the traffic signal that was mentioned and he understood that the City has specific guidelines for the placement of traffic signals, etc. He asked about a justification for a traffic signal at the intersection of Donlon Way and Dublin Blvd. and the right turn from Dublin Blvd. to San Ramon Road south. Mr. Wiseman responded that because the project results in a reduction of trips, even if there was an existing deficiency, the fair share contribution that the Applicant would have to make would be as it relates to their project. If the intersection at Donlon Way and Dublin Blvd. had a problem, that would be considered a pre- existing condition, and the City cannot require mitigation of something that already exists. He stated that there was no intersection analysis done on the perimeter of the site because of the overall net reduction. He stated that there could be a lot of traffic at those intersections that may warrant some type of improvement, but that is not at the behest of the project because it is not increasing the impacts under CEQA. Cm. Goel asked if the impacts that may be created or exist there are not being attributed to this project due to the traffic analysis that indicates there is an actual reduction in trips that will be generated from this area. Mr. Wiseman answered yes. He stated that there were some comments regarding pedestrian crossings and pointed out the pavement treatments across all four crossings at Donlon Way and Dublin Blvd. which is unusual. Cm. Goel asked for an explanation of what is being required of the development regarding seismic attention to ensure that the development is going above and beyond the design requirements. Jayson Imai, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works, responded that, since the project is located within a seismic hazard area for fault rupture, the Applicant hired a team of geologists and geotechnical engineers, as required by state law. He stated that the investigation included digging 3 trenches on the site which looked for the actual Calaveras Fault, and they were successful in finding it. He stated that they found that it was limited to a single fault going across the site, not a series of faults, but a single fault. He stated that, based on the appearance of the soil structure, they found the rupture zone is limited to a width of 2 -4 feet in all three faults and the earth deform is limited to a width of 19 -24 feet total. The geologist team recommended a setback of 25 feet on each side of the fault for a total width of 50 feet. He referred to the slide that shows the fault line on the grading map and pointed out the setback on either side of the fault. He stated that the geotechnical report was peer reviewed by 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif W as g e I /05 DRAFT DRAFT independent geologists hired by the City. He and the independent geologist concurred with the conclusion. He stated that, based on the recommendations of the peer reviewer and his site observations he recommended to the Public Works Director to concur with the recommendations of the 50 foot wide zone. He stated that the geotechnical engineer for the project has recommended different design standards for the foundations of the houses that border the fault zone to handle any deformation from an earthquake. Cm. Goel asked if soil bores were done. Mr. Imai answered yes. He stated that borings were done as well as trenches in three different spots. Cm. Goel referred to Figure 3.4 -1 and asked for an explanation of the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Boundaries and how that affects the project. Mr. Imai answered that the fault zone is defined by maps developed by the State and indicates a fault zone and give requirements for studies. If a project is within a fault zone the developer is required to investigate the site for an active fault. The developer did that and the red line is the approximate trace of the fault line that was found. Chair Bhuthimethee asked the Planning Commission for some general thoughts on the project. Cm. Kohli thanked the Applicant and the members of the community for their comments and stated that they have been heard. He felt that this is a tough decision because the Applicant did a good job on a project that fits the area in terms of the historic district. He stated that he likes the design of the homes and felt that there was a lot of thought regarding traffic and accommodating the Challenge Dairy. He was concerned that the Planning Commission is being asked again to change the land use from retail /office to residential. He felt that this is an opportunity to pause and review the impact of these projects on schools and traffic, and development diversity. He felt that they had not had a good discussion with all the stakeholders regarding what is the right balance of development in Dublin. He felt that the City has not yet begun their marketing plan for the City which is an opportunity for the City to re- introduce itself to the rest of the Bay Area and beyond as a place that they would want to not only live but also work. He felt that it is an election year which brings an opportunity for fresh ideas to come to the table. He felt that another site, at another time, the project would be good, but, taking the facts into account and the concerns of the members of the community regarding the impact on parking and the overall look and feel of historic district, he felt that he could not support a land use change for this project at this time. Cm. Goel responded that he looks at this project from a bigger perspective. He understood Cm. Kohli's concerns regarding re- designation of land uses and this development. He recognized that the Applicant went through a very thorough process to improve an aesthetic appearance of a true in -fill project. He felt that whatever is built in this area will have some type of access challenge or traffic impacts. He felt that looking at it from a whole picture, he understood the proposed land use change issue but felt that, in a general perspective, he could not apply it to this project. He felt that the re- designation makes some sense as a business decision. He stated that he heard the comments regarding the homes that front onto Donlon Way and tried to ensure that the comments were all addressed. He did not feel that there has been another developer that has done the type of outreach effort while keeping a holistic perspective for the project. He agrees with the parking issue and feels it is an issue for the entire City, but that 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kgjukaw .`J leelaaaif 41 as g e I /0 DRAFT DRAFT impact is not a result of this project. He felt that the Heritage Park and Museums were using a benefit that wasn't granted to them. He felt that other things could be done, i.e., change the configuration of Donlon Way, provide parking opportunities, push the houses further back or tell the developer to go away, but did not feel that was the right solution. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the project is not flawless, but likes the project overall. He stated that he cares about the concerns of the community members. He felt that parking for the Heritage Park and Museums is a problem and that they need to encourage Staff to work with the members of the public. He felt that using part of the Community Benefit Payment for parking relief would be good. He felt that the issue of the traffic signal was answered, and he is comfortable regarding the issue of the fault line. He felt that whether the project meets the design guidelines will change from one person to the next, but the project does meet the design guidelines. He mentioned Plan 4 -C which has a lot of stucco compared to the other houses and he felt that it does not tie in with the Heritage Park theme. He felt that the developer has done a good job of complying with the design guidelines, and the community outreach. He felt that the school impact for this project is not significant but he is very sensitive to that issue. He felt that they all should be mindful of the build -out of the City. He stated that he understands Cm. Kohli's concern regarding changing the land use types. He felt that, in regards to this project, he trusts Staff and the felt that the Applicant has created a good project for the City and if the Planning Commission denies the project, given Challenge Dairy and some of the other things that are involved regarding community relations, he was not sure it would be a good idea. He stated that he is in support of the project. Cm. Do also commended the Applicant for a good project and the attention to detail to comply with the Specific Plan. She also appreciated the community outreach, working with the kennel to improve their home and preserving the heritage of the City. She stated that the only other thing that could fill this space would be open space, but felt that would not be good for the City. She stated that she hears the community members concerns. She stated that the project is not perfect but it's always hard to see a project on paper and visualize what it will look like, but she can see the historic nature of the project. She felt that the project will upgrade a neglected corner of Dublin. She stated that she is in support of the project. Chair Bhuthimethee also commended everyone who has worked on the project, and thanked the Dublin Historical Preservation Association for coming to the meeting, speaking and all the work that they do. She thanked Staff for their work and explanations. She stated that she can see both sides of the issues and to Cm. Kohli's point regarding re- designation — she felt that the Planning documents are our "best guess at the time ", but if there is something appropriate that comes in she does not find fault with re- designation. She felt that the Planning Commission should not get too stuck on designations that were made years ago, and felt that there is space for change. She mentioned the things that are right with the project: the Challenge Dairy building; the green store; bulb outs on Donlon Way; the replacement trees that will be larger than typical trees; and the ownership into areas close to the downtown. She was concerned that the homes on Donlon Way appear too large. The architecture is nice, but she felt that there are things that could be done to make the homes seem more historical in nature. She stated that the Applicant mentioned that the specific plan guidelines require the houses to be forward but her personal preference would be to move them back and give them a larger front yard with more pavers instead of concrete which would create a completely paved driveway and walkway. She stated that she likes the trellises which contribute to a more pedestrian scale and also reflects on the Kolb house across the street at the Heritage Park. She felt that the project addresses some of the community values and the architecture is special, but she was curious 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e 110 DRAFT DRAFT about the mix of homes that could be offered. She stated that some feel the project should be less dense and others feel it should be more dense and wondered if there was something that has a little of both. She asked Cm. Kohli about his comment regarding this being an election year. Cm. Kohli responded that he was speaking in general about development diversity in Dublin. He wanted to clarify his statement regarding pausing on re- designating the site, he is not saying that the area has to stay retail /office forever, but he felt that the economy is growing and he believes that there are different types of development opportunities that will come to the City, and he did not want the Planning Commission to be too quick to say "this looks like the best option, let's go for it." He felt that the City has time to wait. Regarding the election — he felt that new members that come on -board may have different ideas about marketing our City that could also enhance the development diversity and impact this site. He stated that he works at a start- up company and they are looking for new space and felt it would be great to be in a new space in this type of area. He stated that he sits on a board that works with start -up companies who have very few employees and felt that this was the perfect area for a start -up business park that would increase commerce in the area. He suggested waiting to see how the year goes and for the marketing plan to be executed and see what type of new fresh ideas are brought forward, then revisit some of the re- designation. He stated that he is not trying to use this project as an example to make a stand but if the Planning Commission were to move forward he didn't think the City would find a better residential project than what was presented at this meeting. However, he felt that there is time. Cm. Goel asked Cm. Kohli to explain his thoughts regarding re- designation for the existing use. He felt that it could be easy to say "go back to the drawing board" and asked Cm. Kohli if he had any suggestions. He stated that maybe there can be a change; maybe they can accommodate something that hasn't been looked at yet. He stated that he would support a recommendation of no and asked for Cm. Kohli's plan. He stated that Challenge Dairy has already renewed their lease so they are not going anywhere; the only difference would be they will have a new home and they appreciate that. Cm. O'Keefe stated that they will not have a happy corporate citizen if this project is not approved. He understood that they have renewed their lease but felt that there are other elements associated with this project. Cm. Kohli suggested that in the Bay Area there are a number of work -share spaces opening up that would look at the existing office building and want to refurbish it or convert it to a work -share space where single entrepreneurs can come and share cube space. He suggested there may be someone interested in refurbishing the building and then offering it as office or, a retail site. He felt that there are opportunities for retail. He did not have any answers today, but he has not seen enough ideas submitted to approve a residential development. He stated he would like to see the results from the execution of the City marketing strategy and he would like to see if there are more people submitting plans as the economy improves, as more companies want to move to the Tri- Valley and if there's an opportunity to fill that space. He felt that there is time to do that and that the Planning Commission should wait. Cm. Goel stated that he has not seen the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and asked what the designation guidelines are for future development. He asked if there was anything predetermined or discussed with the City. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e 110 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Porto answered no; there is a limited amount of residential in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and it is primarily high or medium -high density housing. He stated that the document was prepared anticipating that single - family residential development would be built in the area. For that reason, they directed the developer to prepare a project that met the guidelines. He stated that the developer is not proposing to change the specific plan, which they could have if they had brought in a project that was a higher density, but they did not do that, they met the guidelines; therefore, the only change is for the land use. Cm. Goel asked what would occur if the Planning Commission made a negative recommendation. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission is being asked to review the project and make a recommendation to the City Council, which could be for or against or some modification. Ultimately, the project will go on to the City Council for their final determination on how to proceed. Chair Bhuthimethee asked how the site is designated in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. Mr. Porto answered that the site is currently designated Retail /Office and Zoned PD. Cm. Goel asked what the boundary is for the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. Mr. Porto pointed out the map on the slide which is taken from the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Baker for direction on how to proceed. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission does not have to make the same recommendation for all 5 items. He gave them their options and suggested a straw vote for each one. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council certify the EIR, independent of the others. She stated that they can recommend the EIR be certified but it doesn't require any other motions. She felt that the concerns vary depending so a straw vote beyond the EIR would be a good idea. She noted that everything after the GPA/SPA must be consistent with the General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan so if the Planning Commission does not support the GPA/SPA then the rest of the recommendations cannot be recommended for approval. She suggested that a straw vote for recommendations 2 -5 and see what the issues are. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a straw vote on the recommendation that the City Council certify an Environmental Impact Report and Adopt CEQA mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Heritage Park project. Cm. Kohli asked if the EIR is certified, whether this project is built or another project, would another EIR be produced. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kgjukaw .`J leelaaaif 41 as g e I /09 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker answered that it would be dependent on the project and whether it is consistent with what was studied. If the project were different, then the differences would need to be evaluated as to the impacts. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a straw vote on the recommendation that the City Council certify an Environmental Impact Report and Adopt CEQA mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Heritage Park project. Cm. O'Keefe made a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify an Environmental Impact Report and Adopt CEQA mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Heritage Park project. Cm. Do seconded the motion. Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do and Cm. O'Keefe voted yes. Cm. Kohli abstained. Cm. Goel voted no because he felt he had not had a chance to review the responses to the EIR. Mr. Baker stated that there was a motion recommending that the City Council certify an Environmental Impact Report and Adopt CEQA mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Heritage Park project. There were 3 votes in support, 1 abstention and 1 no. Straw poll to: Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendments for the Heritage Park project. Cm. Kohli voted no. Cm. Goel voted no. Cm. O'Keefe voted yes. Cm. Do voted yes. Chair Bhuthimethee voted yes. Straw poll: 3 yes; 2 no Cm. Kohli felt that the next 3 votes would be a straw poll for the 3 yes votes. Ms. Faubion stated the General Plan is what everything must be consistent with and if the straw poll indicated 3 in support of the General Plan and if those same 3 votes are in favor of the rest of the approvals as well it would be worth it to make a motion for 2, 3, 4 & 5 together. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she is not comfortable with the SDR portion of the project. Cm. O'Keefe asked Chair Bhuthimethee to elaborate on what she is not comfortable with. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that if she had a chance to continue the item she would. She felt that there are some unresolved issues; she stated that she is not opposed to the re- designation but felt that there is room for more exploration. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e I //0 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. O'Keefe asked what changes would need to be made to the SDR to allow her to approve the project. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the homes on Donlon Way are too large for the context and she wondered if there is a way to create a different mix of home choices in terms of density. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the Applicant did a good job of addressing that concern stating that the largest home is 3,100+ square feet. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that, in looking across the street from the historic park to the project, the homes do not have to be exactly the same or like the Kolb House or St. Raymond's church, but she felt that the homes are too dense. Cm. Do stated that the original plan was for 11 houses on Donlon Way. Mr. Porto responded that, when the project was originally submitted, there were 11 houses in that location but, working with the guidelines, they pushed back the garages and moved the houses up to address the street. . Chair Bhuthimethee still felt that there is too much house on the street for the context of blending in with the Heritage Park and Museums. Mr. Baker felt he was hearing that Chair Bhuthimethee would like the same lots but with smaller homes on them. He stated that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and if there is concurrence with Chair Bhuthimethee's concern then that could be part of the recommendation, but if not then it would not be part of the recommendation. Cm. Do asked if that would mean a reduction in homes for the development. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she support larger homes at another location in the project. Cm. Do felt that the Applicant would have to reconfigure the project to fit the larger homes in another part of the development. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she thought that they should just put smaller homes on those lots on Donlon Way. She felt that those homes should blend in more with the Heritage Park and Museums. Chair Bhuthimethee asked where they were on the straw poll. Mr. Baker answered that they have adopted the CEQA document and had taken a straw vote on the General Plan Amendment and they are now on the straw vote for the Planned Development Zoning which is item #3. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a straw vote for #3 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning the Heritage Park project site to PD- Planned Development and approving a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e b . DRAFT Cm. Kohli voted no. Cm. Goel voted no. Cm. O'Keefe voted yes. Cm. Do voted yes. Chair Bhuthimethee voted yes. DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a straw vote for #4 recommending City Council adopt a resolution approving a Site Development Review, Parcel Map 10259 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Tract Map 8160. Cm. Kohli voted no. Cm. Goel voted no. Cm. O'Keefe voted yes. Cm. Do voted yes. Chair Bhuthimethee voted no. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a straw vote for #5 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Bates Stringer Ventures for the Heritage Park project. Cm. Kohli voted no. Cm. Goel voted no. Cm. O'Keefe voted yes. Cm. Do voted yes. Chair Bhuthimethee voted yes. Mr. Baker asked if there were any items that they wished to discuss that might affect their vote. Chair Bhuthimethee wanted to commend the Planning Commission for having differing opinions but felt that she was on the fence. She felt that there are some really great things about the project but there are some areas that she would like to see more exploration to determine if the project can be changed or improved. Cm. Goel felt that, after looking at the picture of the Kolb House, he thought again about Chair Bhuthimethee's concern and that the Planning Commission doesn't have to recommend approval of this project. He felt that the Challenge Dairy was very happy with the incentive of a new building but felt that it could still come to fruition with a different project. He stated that Cm. Kohli and Chair Bhuthimethee both made comments that swayed him and he felt that they needed to take some Planning Commission steps and stand for what their function and roles are here in order to make a solid recommendation to City Council. He stated that he heard the comments from the individuals who spoke at the meeting and their concerns are important to him. He felt that he could not do the project justice with the timeframe that he had to review it. He was concerned that the members of the public who commented on the EIR received the Final EIR today and he felt that was not enough time to review the responses. He felt that the project is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. Cm. O'Keefe disagreed with Cm. Kohli and Cm. Goel. He felt that the project is not perfect but it will be a great addition to the community and he is in support of the project. Cm. Do asked what would their next step be. 41tanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kgjukaw .`J leelaaaif 41 as g e 1 1.12 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission are all clear on where they stand regarding the project which will be reflected in the minutes; the Planning Commission has taken a straw vote and based on the straw vote, there is support for the General Plan /Specific Plan Amendment, the PD. There is not support for the SDR, but there is support for the Development Agreement; he felt it would be appropriate to make a motion based on the straw vote. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3 -1 -1, Cm. Kohli abstained, Cm. Goel voted no, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 -28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPT CEQA MITIGATION FINDINGS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT On a motion by Do and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 3 -2, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT On a motion by Do and seconded by O'Keefe on a vote of 3 -2, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 -30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT SITE TO PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN On a motion by Do and seconded by O'Keefe on a vote of 2 -3 — the motion to approve failed. (Ptanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e I //3 DRAFT DRAFT On an alternative motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Kohli, on a vote of 3 -2, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT, PARCEL MAP AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8160 FOR THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT On a motion by Do and seconded by O'Keefe, on a vote of 3 -2, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND BATES STRINGER VENTURES FOR THE HERITAGE PARK PROJECT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker advised the Planning Commission that there are no items for the June 24, 2014 meeting, therefore it is cancelled. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 10:35:04 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director (Ptanning Commission June /0, 2014 (kqj ka Aleelialif 41 as g e I b`.H DRAFT G:IMINUTESI20141PLANNING COMMISSION06.10.14 DRAFT PC MINUTES. docx DRAFT 41tanning Commission june /0, 2014 (kqp,da,r `Alleelilllif Wage I 115